Civil Enforcement - "On Claim for Debt"

Castle

Umkomaas said:

Cynical that the 12-hour £5 parking fee expires at 7am which makes it so difficult for many to get out of bed, to the car and shift it somewhere else!

I wonder what CEL would make of a 7am departure, and immediate return at 7:05am with £3 put in the slot to take the parking licence to 9:05am?

It's even worse for the Hotel Residents because the free permits are only valid on the day of issue, so I'm guessing they will need to apply for another permit as the clock strikes midnight!

Redx

The sign on page 9 says 7am to 7pm , nothing about 7pm to 7am , it's a completely different  sign on page 11

The latter sign mentions tariffs that are 24/7 , so covers overnight stays too

So it seems the signs changed to an all day 24 hour regime , from a previous daytime only regime , which maybe why cel mentioned it in their rejections

Conflicting on-site signage , or it's been changed , so the signs in the car park on the day formed a contract with the motorist ,  so if that was sign 1 , then sign 2 does not apply , plus if both signs were present , the CRA favours the consumer so sign 1 is predominant

Stick to your story of complying with sign 1 , they will have to prove their assertions of 24/7 tariffs , clearly signed , on the day

I would say they have improved since , even though it's a trap as pointed out in the recent replies

Justme2020

Redx said:

The sign on page 9 says 7am to 7pm , nothing about 7pm to 7am , it's completely different tongue sign on page 11

The latter sign mentions tariffs that are 24/7 , so cover overnight stays too

So it seems the signs changed to an all day 24 hour regime , from a previous daytime only regime , which maybe why cel mentioned it in their rejections

Conflicting signage , or it's been changed , so the igns in the car park on the day formed a contract with the motorist , ask if that was sign 1 , then sign 2 does not apply , plus if both signs were present , the CRA favours the consumer

Stick to your story of complying with sign 1 , they will have to prove their assertions of 24/7 tariffs , clearly signed , on the day

I would say they have improved since , even though it's a trap as pointed out in the recent replies

Brilliant, thank you. 

Should I add wording that says about CRA 2015 favouring the consumer so there’s no ambiguity or should the judge know this anyway?

Umkomaas

Justme2020 said:

Redx said:

The sign on page 9 says 7am to 7pm , nothing about 7pm to 7am , it's completely different tongue sign on page 11

The latter sign mentions tariffs that are 24/7 , so cover overnight stays too

So it seems the signs changed to an all day 24 hour regime , from a previous daytime only regime , which maybe why cel mentioned it in their rejections

Conflicting signage , or it's been changed , so the igns in the car park on the day formed a contract with the motorist , ask if that was sign 1 , then sign 2 does not apply , plus if both signs were present , the CRA favours the consumer

Stick to your story of complying with sign 1 , they will have to prove their assertions of 24/7 tariffs , clearly signed , on the day

I would say they have improved since , even though it's a trap as pointed out in the recent replies

Brilliant, thank you. 

Should I add wording that says about CRA 2015 favouring the consumer so there’s no ambiguity or should the judge know this anyway?

Add it in, then it can't slip by. While Judges are required in all such cases to consider CRA, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that they inadvertently forget it, ignore it, are ignorant of the requirement. Leave nothing to chance as often the Judges allocated to clear up the private parking claims avalanche specialise in other areas of law (family or property perhaps) and have little first-hand experience of parking contract law.

Fruitcake

Justme2020 said:

Redx said:

The sign on page 9 says 7am to 7pm , nothing about 7pm to 7am , it's completely different tongue sign on page 11

The latter sign mentions tariffs that are 24/7 , so cover overnight stays too

So it seems the signs changed to an all day 24 hour regime , from a previous daytime only regime , which maybe why cel mentioned it in their rejections

Conflicting signage , or it's been changed , so the igns in the car park on the day formed a contract with the motorist , ask if that was sign 1 , then sign 2 does not apply , plus if both signs were present , the CRA favours the consumer

Stick to your story of complying with sign 1 , they will have to prove their assertions of 24/7 tariffs , clearly signed , on the day

I would say they have improved since , even though it's a trap as pointed out in the recent replies

Brilliant, thank you. 

Should I add wording that says about CRA 2015 favouring the consumer so there’s no ambiguity or should the judge know this anyway?

Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says,

69 Contract terms that may have different meanings
(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

D_P_Dance

Here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem

Justme2020

Fruitcake said:

Justme2020 said:

Redx said:

The sign on page 9 says 7am to 7pm , nothing about 7pm to 7am , it's completely different tongue sign on page 11

The latter sign mentions tariffs that are 24/7 , so cover overnight stays too

So it seems the signs changed to an all day 24 hour regime , from a previous daytime only regime , which maybe why cel mentioned it in their rejections

Conflicting signage , or it's been changed , so the igns in the car park on the day formed a contract with the motorist , ask if that was sign 1 , then sign 2 does not apply , plus if both signs were present , the CRA favours the consumer

Stick to your story of complying with sign 1 , they will have to prove their assertions of 24/7 tariffs , clearly signed , on the day

I would say they have improved since , even though it's a trap as pointed out in the recent replies

Brilliant, thank you. 

Should I add wording that says about CRA 2015 favouring the consumer so there’s no ambiguity or should the judge know this anyway?

Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says,

69 Contract terms that may have different meanings
(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

Amazing. Thanks

KeithP

One hundred and seventeen replies and then... it all goes quiet.
We don't even know if he bothered to file a Defence.

I hope you got all the help you wanted OP.

Justme2020

KeithP said:

One hundred and seventeen replies and then... it all goes quiet.
We don't even know if he bothered to file a Defence.

I hope you got all the help you wanted OP.

As yet, I've heard nothing back since receiving confirmation that my defence had been received @KeithP
I'll be back as and when I hear more, but thanks to yourself and others for your help.